temporary Recipient marking

Frank Seidel frank.zidle at GMAIL.COM
Wed Sep 3 13:28:32 UTC 2014

Dear Misha,

In Baga Mandori (a language spoken in the same general region as Mandinka)
a similar situation applies as Denis has described. There are two verbs:
kïkà which indicates a transfer of an object (but not the transfer of
ownership or some such) and kïsöng (low pitched) which indicates that the
giver reneges ownership or access rights over the item. I do not think that
there are differences in object sequence after the verb. I have not
concsiously tested for that yet, though.



On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 4:33 AM, Denis CREISSELS <
Denis.Creissels at univ-lyon2.fr> wrote:

> Dear Misha,
> Mandinka has two differents verbs, with however an interesting difference
> in their construction: díi (which does not imply more than transfer) takes
> the theme as its object and the recipient as an oblique argument, whereas
> só (which implies that the theme will remain at the disposal of the
> recipient) takes the recipient as its object and the theme as an oblique
> argument. You can find the relevant examples on p. 4 of my paper ‘Valency
> properties of Mandinka verbs’
> http://www.deniscreissels.fr/public/Creissels-Valency_classes_Mandinka.pdf
> Best,
> Denis
> Michael Daniel <misha.daniel at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
> Dear all,
> most East Caucasian (alias Nakh-Daghestanian) languages have two options
> to mark the Recipient with the verb 'give'. One uses the dative case and
> may be called the dative strategy of Recipient marking. The other uses one
> of the spatial, more specifically (al)lative forms (there are many), and
> may be termed the lative strategy. A similar construction is also attested
> in another language of the Caucasus, Ossetic, which suggests an areal
> connection.
> The difference between the two strategies is often explained as the
> difference between permanent and temporary Recipients.
> "I gave Mohammed-Dat the book"
> 'I gave (offered) the book to M.'
> vs.
> "I gave Mohammed-Lat the book"
> 'I gave (lent) the book to M.'
> Of course, I omit a great lot of language specific details; one important
> note, however, is that the opposition may also be interpreted as that of
> transfer (of possession) vs. caused motion - something like 'give' vs.
> 'hand'. In a sense, these languages distinguish two components in the
> semantics of give, that are (almost) always inseparable - that of caused
> motion and that of transfer.
> My question is - could anyone give me references for or just mention
> language names that do the same or similar kind of distinction on nouns -
> by means of case or adposition or other means. Any other grammatical means
> to express this opposition (or opposition close to this) is also very much
> welcome as a typological background. (I can probably think of a variation
> in the marking of the Theme - the Given Object).
> Michael Daniel
> PS
> I am aware that a similar contrast or at least a related metaphor has been
> proposed for the opposition between the English. This is the parallel I am
> aware of (even though I do not think it works well here).
> If anyone is interested in the data from or reference for East Caucasian,
> I will be happy to provide it.

Frank Seidel, Ph.D.
University of Florida
Center for African Studies at the University of Florida
427 Grinter Hall - PO Box 115560
Gainesville, FL 32611-5560
Tel: 352.392.2183
Fax: 352.392.2435
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20140903/e96f68d2/attachment.htm>

More information about the Lingtyp mailing list